Transporter Mods...in the works...need input!

modwright · « **on:** 20 May 2007, 09:13 am »

Hi guys, I am working on Transporter mods and am first evaluating the units stock performance and flexibility, relative to a regular CDP.

Now, first of all, how are most of you using this type of device, i.e. via ethernet to computer server as main source, or streaming wireless from laptop, etc.

Along the same lines, I am sure that there are a number of you out there that can recommend the best CODECs and methods for ripping losslessly to HD. I am doing some listening comparisons right now to CD from a CDP, compared to CD ripped losslessly with EAC to laptop and either streamed to Transporter or hard-connected via ethernet connection.

Analog signal is being fed to a LS 36.5 as common preamp.

Initial listening tests are VERY favorable!

Mods will include power supply upgrades of course, but will also focus on a rebuild of the analog stage. It may have an option that 'glows'

of course, but this is not requisite.

I am open to feedback and info from customers at this point.

Thanks!

Dan Wright
President, ModWright Instruments Inc.

tomjtx · « **Reply #1 on:** 20 May 2007, 09:49 am »

Dan,

See if you hear an improvement through the xlr outs.

My TP sounds much better balanced

jermmd · « **Reply #2 on:** 20 May 2007, 12:46 pm »

My music, burned to Flac using EAC, resides on a server in my basement and is streamed via ethernet cable to my Transporter.
I use the RCA analog outs directly to my amp and then to the speakers. I am very satisfied with my sound.

zacster · « **Reply #3 on:** 20 May 2007, 01:15 pm »

I have to question the need for an upgrade to a device that costs so much in the first place, compared to their basic squeezebox. I heard it at the HE show last week and it sounded very nice as is.

ted_b · « **Reply #4 on:** 20 May 2007, 02:21 pm »

As you know very well Dan, we've discussed many times, I'd love to see a Modwright DAC

(tubed, of course; do the DAC full-out and you don't need to mod any more sources) rather than modding adtll sources. However, if you are gonna mod the TP here's my $.02: I demoed one for 30 days but found it a bit too analytical for the $$ compared to going a modded digital out on the SB3 and trying flavors of outboard DACs (Vinnie's analog mods on the SB3 are good, but nowhere near my Modwright 3910). My TP (and my current SB3) was connected wirelessly from my desktop pc server, running FLAC ripped from EAC. I can go wired easily enough, but no downside to wireless so far.

........that all being said.......if you, oh great one, produce a tubed modded Transporter Platinum Signature I will likely be one of the first in line. I LOVE my 3910, and I LOVE my media server convenience....to have the sound of one and the flexibility of the other would be da bomb!

TomS · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 May 2007, 03:17 pm »

USB -> I2S Dac would be nice

modwright · « **Reply #6 on:** 21 May 2007, 06:53 am »

To try to answer all of you at once.

At $2K, the Transporter is not inexpensive, but it is also a pretty amazing piece of gear for what it does. Digital input, output, wireless, built-in volume control, etc.

I have poked around inside and confirmed my suspicion that the clock circuits and power supply regulation are quite good. The analog stage is pretty typical and needs attention. I am thinking tubes and no external supply. I have a few tricks up my sleeve and believe that we can do something pretty cool here.

The AKM DAC chip is very good and has differential outs to boot.

More to come...stay tuned.

Thanks!

Dan

richidoo · « **Reply #7 on:** 21 May 2007, 01:24 pm »

I find that FLAC sounds only 98% as good on SB as does wav. I know Flac is lossless, but involves more processing than playing wav, and follows a different logical path through the system so maybe the SB is not fully up to it in some way. I don't know why this is. It is only evident to me in the high frequencies.

I would buy a TP if I was assured flac played back as perfectly as wav. I would look for a more organic, involving sound than standard TP analog. I use tube gear. I currently use SB with linear PS as my main digital source. Looking to upgrade it with external dac or the right modded TP.

You know, what would be a great mod would be a video out, even composite for the display. Then blind old farts like me could see it without squinting. Wonder if there's room in there and expertise on your staff to do that? I know it would not be simple. Just an idea.
Good luck with the project.
Rich

ted_b · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 May 2007, 02:37 pm »

Quote from: richidoo on 21 May 2007, 01:24 pm

I find that FLAC sounds only 98% as good on SB as does wav. I know Flac is lossless, but involves more processing than playing wav, and follows a different logical path through the system so maybe the SB is not fully up to it in some way. I don't know why this is. It is only evident to me in the high frequencies................

Good luck with the project.
Rich

Just set up Slimserver to decode FLAC to wav at the player.

Double Ugly · « **Reply #9 on:** 21 May 2007, 04:20 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 21 May 2007, 02:37 pm

Quote from: richidoo on 21 May 2007, 01:24 pm
I find that FLAC sounds only 98% as good on SB as does wav. I know Flac is lossless, but involves more processing than playing wav, and follows a different logical path through the system so maybe the SB is not fully up to it in some way. I don't know why this is. It is only evident to me in the high frequencies................

Just set up Slimserver to decode FLAC to wav at the player.

Exactly.

Quote from: richidoo on 21 May 2007, 01:24 pm

I would buy a TP if I was assured flac played back as perfectly as wav.

Mine does.

-Jim

jhm731 · « **Reply #10 on:** 21 May 2007, 04:21 pm »

Dan, What about the SMPS that powers the display and wireless card, are you going to get rid of that?

Any plans to improve the digital outputs?

IMO, the TP should have been package in a plain box without the fancy display and knob. The extra $$$ should have gone into a display remote like the one on Sonus.

BobC · « **Reply #11 on:** 21 May 2007, 04:29 pm »

How about a HT bypass?

pugs · « **Reply #12 on:** 21 May 2007, 04:32 pm »

Quote from: BobC on 21 May 2007, 04:29 pm

How about a HT bypass?

I'll second that

Papajin · « **Reply #13 on:** 21 May 2007, 06:28 pm »

Quote from: pugs on 21 May 2007, 04:32 pm

Quote from: BobC on 21 May 2007, 04:29 pm
How about a HT bypass?

I'll second that

I'll 3rd that...

Danny Kaey · « **Reply #14 on:** 21 May 2007, 07:37 pm »

goodie, goodie, goodie!

judging from past experiences w/ Dan's mods, I know this will be killer!

modwright · « **Reply #15 on:** 22 May 2007, 05:29 am »

Hi guys, after opening it up and looking around, I made a few decisions.

1) The SMPS may need to be shielded or relocated, but will remain as it is only serving basic functions in the unit, not anything in the audio signal path. Yes, it is radiating some noise, but shielding or relocating can address that.

2) I do believe that when complete, the analog stage will *glow* so to speak. The stock op-amp stage is unnecessarily complex.

3) Would an outboard PS for this unit be a turn-off or not?

4) RE HT/BP, I hadn't thought about that. I don't use it as a preamp. I feed it into one of our preamps with HT/BP of course. I don't know that we will be doing anything with this unit RE HT/BP, unless I can be helped to better understand how this might be used.

5) We may investigate ways to improve the digital outs, but mainly I am planning for this unit to be optimized for use as a standalone or one-box source.

Thanks for the feedback! More to come!

Dan

gbeard · « **Reply #16 on:** 22 May 2007, 11:51 am »

Hey Dan,

Read my take in the current PFO and you'll get a good sense of what I think it needs. To me, it is a clear upgrade over my SB2 in terms of overall useability. I do agree with many others here that it is more analytical than my RWA modded unit. I use wireless and it is a much more robust streamer than the SB, in fact I never had as much as one glitch. The 24/96 is not to be sneezed at either. Overall, it is a great piece of kit, but perhaps not the best value.

Like many others here, I believe a modded Squeezebox may be a better value at this point, but I believe (and said so in print) that a full-tilt mod to the TP--especially a glowing one--may make it a giant killer. BTW, I am using itunes with apple lossless and find it to be a simple and good sounding way to use my SB2.

Put me in the que for a listen!

Cheers,
Gary

richidoo · « **Reply #17 on:** 22 May 2007, 12:14 pm »

Gary's PFO TP review is here, previous issue.
Rich

bpape · « **Reply #18 on:** 22 May 2007, 02:14 pm »

Dan.

I think quite a few people use the SB straight into their amps as an only source setup. A bypass if not overly expensive to implement correctly would be a selling point for many people.

Bryan

sleepysurf · « **Reply #19 on:** 22 May 2007, 02:54 pm »

Here's an interesting angle. For somebody like me, already thrilled with my newly tube-rectified SWL 9.0SE, I'd have NO use for a "tube enhanced" Transporter. I'm already quite happy using a Squeezebox/Benchmark DAC combo as my primary source.

However, why not work with Sean et al (Slim/Logitech) to incorporate (? license) the KEY Transporter circuitry into one of your already superb Pre's, which already has the requisite "toob" sonics, HT/BP, and excellent analog volume control. In essence, it would be a Pre/DAC/Transporter all-in-one killer device. IMHO, the "smart" knob is nice, but gimmicky, and could be eliminated. Having a larger display, fewer buttons, and EASIER source/analog/digital input switching (than the Transporter currently has) would be a plus.

I'd definitely "upgrade" to a device like that (reluctantly selling my SWL 9.0SE).